Mechanical ventilatory support is widely accepted as an effective means for supporting and treating patients with respiratory failure. Mechanical ventilators are simply machines designed to assist with inspiration and expiration. Often, a primary objective of ventilatory support is for the ventilator to provide some or all of a patient's work of breathing (WOB). This goal is often not achieved due in part to an inability to accurately measure and titrate a patient's WOB. Ventilators must be highly reliable, durable and precise. Most modern ventilators are electronically controlled and most are designed to allow many small, but different, fine-tuning manipulations by the operator. Ideally, the operator uses these controls to match the pressure and flow output characteristics of the ventilator to meet each individual patient's needs. Optimized ventilator settings also serve to make ventilatory support more tolerable for the patient.
The first generation of mechanical ventilators (prior to the mid-1960s), were designed only to support alveolar ventilation and to provide supplemental oxygen for those patients unable to breathe themselves (generally for reasons such as neuromuscular disease or paralysis). These early ventilators provided 100% of the work required to breathe if the supported patient did not breathe on his or her own. If the patient attempted to breathe spontaneously, a complete lack of a response from the ventilator created agitation—also termed “fighting the ventilator”. Those patients that tried to breathe spontaneously became so agitated, it was (and remains in some institutions) common practice to heavily sedate or paralyze the patient to ensure proper synchrony with the ventilator. Sedation or drug-induced muscle paralysis, may create more problems than they solve. For instance, heavily sedated or paralyzed patients simply can not breathe spontaneously; as a result, if they become accidentally disconnected from the ventilator they will quickly die of asphyxia. This required an increased vigilance and a very elevated level of monitoring. More importantly, paralysis and sedation also lead to a rapid deterioration of the patient's respiratory muscles, or what has become known as: “disuse atrophy”. Without strong, conditioned respiratory muscles, clinicians find it difficult or, on occasion, nearly impossible to liberate their patients from the ventilator, even when their original pulmonary problems have resolved. To overcome these potential problems, modern mechanical ventilators have become far more sophisticated in response to our increasing understanding of lung patho-physiology. In an effort to improve patient tolerance of mechanical ventilation, while simultaneously maintaining adequate respiratory muscle function, many new modes have been developed. Many of these new modes allowed spontaneous breathing, patient-triggered and pressure-assisted breaths, or even patient-triggered mandated breaths. These pressure assisted breaths, when properly adjusted by the clinician, allow the ventilator to share the WOB with the patient. By the early 1970s, a new mode of ventilation allowed patients to breathe at their own pace and magnitude, in the time period between mandated (machine delivered and controlled) breaths that were programmed for delivery at precise intervals each minute; this mode was known as Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation (IMV). Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV), came along a few years later and could be used alone or in combination with IMV; this mode provided a variable pressure-assist (at an operator chosen level of pressure) for each patient-initiated spontaneous inhalation effort. Varieties of “alternative” ventilation modes, addressing the needs of severely impaired patients, continue to be developed.
Patients receiving ventilator support need different levels of assistance; some require complete control of their ventilation, while others require varying levels of support depending upon their ability to sustain breathing on their own. Matching the ventilator support provided, to that required by the patient, remains to this day, an imposing challenge; too much support predisposes to disuse atrophy, while too little support often leads to a cycle of fatigue, followed by respiratory failure. At the present time, there is no readily available, easy to use, or reliable method or apparatus for estimating an appropriate support level. Confounding the matter further, a patient's requisite level of support may vary widely throughout the day, for a variety of reasons.
Gas inadvertently trapped in a patient's lungs, or PEEPi, interferes with the clinicians best attempts to estimate an appropriate support level for patients. For years, many clinicians were completely unaware of its existence. Hence when it was first reported, it was termed “intrinsic” or even “occult” because it is hidden from view (using conventional monitoring techniques). The extra (un-exhaled or trapped) gas, remaining in a patient's lungs at the onset of the next inhalation, creates an inspiratory threshold load (a positive pressure level above ambient) that the patient's inspiratory muscles must overcome before fresh gas can enter the lungs. Furthermore, since the inspiratory muscles are displaced from their normal resting position (by the hyperinflation) they are mechanically disadvantaged; that is, the direction of the respiratory muscles are pulling, no longer generates the largest possible change in volume/unit of force. All of this simply means that patients with dynamic pulmonary hyperinflation (DPH) or PEEPi, must work significantly harder to breathe. In addition, patients receiving ventilator assistance or, those patients that are generating, at least, a portion of the work of breathing, must generate another additional effort to breathe; that is, they must overcome the trigger pressure set on the ventilator before they receive any assistance from the ventilator. A trigger pressure must be used to synchronize the patient's efforts to the ventilator's response (otherwise, the ventilator would randomly initiate breaths, some of which might conflict with, or even negate, the patient's own efforts). The combination of an undetectable and difficult to quantify PEEPi level and the ventilator's trigger setting, frequently produce an intolerable additional workload; the additional work is often high enough to produce inspiratory muscle fatigue, particularly in patients with poor respiratory muscle function. For those patients not trying to breathe on their own, undetected PEEPi is just as problematic. The additional pressure it produces in the patient's chest can reduce venous blood return into the chest, which in turn reduces cardiac output and, ultimately, can dramatically reduce a patient's blood pressure. Too much trapped gas in the lungs also predisposes to over-inflation and structural damage, even rupture of the lungs. Research has shown that PEEPi occurs far more frequently than is commonly believed. It has also been shown that in ventilator-dependent COPD patients, PEEPi accounts for a large percentage of the patient's total ventilatory workload. Reducing or eliminating PEEPi could then, have a major clinical impact for patients with an acute exacerbation of COPD. Clearly, detecting and accurately measuring PEEPi represents an extremely important tool in managing affected patients.
In today's intensive care unit (ICU), most modern ventilators can measure a patient's PEEPi, but only when they do not breathe on their own—any movement or spontaneous efforts during measurement will invalidate that measurement. Ventilator-supported patients that breathe spontaneously virtually never have their PEEPi accurately measured; to do so, requires the placement of an esophageal balloon or use of thoracic impedance measuring equipment. Both approaches are expensive, very technique oriented and extremely time-consuming. As a rule, these approaches are only used by researchers. The esophageal balloon is the most commonly employed approach because it is the least expensive and balloons tend to interfere with fewer other ongoing and required monitors or therapies. The concept involves using a properly inflated and positioned, balloon tipped catheter that is inserted into the patient's esophagus. When positioned properly, it is used to measure esophageal pressure (Pes). It has been shown that in certain esophageal locations (but not all locations), pressure changes within the esophagus are of the same magnitude as those occurring in the pleural space (although the absolute pressure values will likely NOT be the same). The change in esophageal pressure (from resting, or baseline) needed to abruptly bring expiratory flow to the point where it just crosses the zero flow axis (the instant just prior to the onset of flow into the lungs) represents PEEPi, also called dynamic PEEPi (PEEPi,dyn).
The esophageal balloon technique has never been popular with clinicians. The balloons are difficult to place, can interfere with important equipment like feeding tubes, and must be positioned and inflated properly to prevent inaccurate and misleading measurements. Further complicating the esophageal balloon procedure is signal quality. Frequent swallowing or inadvertent esophageal spasms can be difficult to discern and yet render the signal temporarily useless. Additionally, the esophagus is located just anterior of the heart and the signal, as a result, is often difficult to interpret without using a “heavy filter” to remove the unwanted pressure fluctuations secondary to the beating heart. Thoracic impedance equipment is not only expensive, difficult to use, and may not be consistently repeatable (according to researchers), it often interferes with absolutely indispensable electrocardiography monitoring leads, crucial intravenous catheters, and other important equipment. For these reasons, it seems likely that the esophageal balloon and thoracic impedance devices will remain investigative tools.
For those patients not breathing spontaneously, PEEPi is measured using an appropriately timed, end-expiratory, airway occlusion maneuver. This involves a sudden occlusion of the expiratory valve (a blocking of the path normally taken by the patient's exhaled gases). Occlusion of the expiratory valve traps any additional gas that might be still leaving the patient's lungs, in the breathing circuit (which is attached to the patient's ventilator) and the patient's lungs. When the pressure (measured in the breathing circuit) stabilizes, if it is above the normal baseline pressure (the pressure at end-exhalation), the patient is said to have PEEPi. The occlusion technique could, potentially, be used for spontaneously breathing patients; but, to do so would require the patient to hold their breath, making absolutely no attempt to breathe, or even move, until the pressure in the breathing circuit reaches equilibrium. Unfortunately, this level of cooperation is almost nonexistent when patients are extremely sick, comatose, heavily sedated or, struggling to breathe against the additional workload imposed by PEEPi.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,588,422 pertains to the field of ventilatory support for respiratory failure, particularly due to lung disease, and in particular to automatically providing sufficient end expiratory pressure to unload PEEPi. The '422 patent seeks to provide continuous and automatic adjustment of the expiratory pressure during ventilatory support, so as to substantially prevent dynamic airway compression and unload PEEPi with the smallest amount of external expiratory pressure. The object of this invention involves varying the external pressure exerted by the ventilator during the exhalation phase and does not measure or quantify PEEPi in any manner. Nor is it obvious how one could measure PEEPi using this patent.
Additionally, U.S. Pat. No. 6,240,920 discloses a method for determining at least one parameter related to a patient's spontaneous attempts at inspiration and/or the patient's respiratory effort in spontaneous attempts at inspiration. What is disclosed in the '920 patent is again a potential method to counteract and manage PEEPi; it provides no methodology for measuring or quantifying the patients actual PEEPi level.
Developing a non-invasive measure of PEEPi (that works in spontaneously breathing patients receiving ventilatory support) is complicated by a number of factors. First, the gas trapped at the alveolar level is almost always non-homogeneously distributed across both lungs thereby, making it difficult to measure the true PEEPi. This means that any measurement of PEEPi, is, at best, an average of the two lungs, considered as though they were identical. Alternatively, the excess pressure (trapped air) maybe hidden behind prematurely collapsed airways—making it virtually undetectable. And lastly, patient efforts to breathe create artifacts that vary on a breath-to-breath basis. Such artifacts may be difficult to separate from the ideal passive pressure waveforms.